peter sullivan
Winnipeg
- Apr 9, 2010
- 2,356
- 4
yeah thats what i was thinking too....
to cover the NHL's investment wouldnt it be closer to $200m?
$140m purchase price
$36m losses this year
$20-25m losses last year
Phoenix XXXVI - There's got to be a morning after
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
- Status
yeah thats what i was thinking too....
to cover the NHL's investment wouldnt it be closer to $200m?
$140m purchase price
$36m losses this year
$20-25m losses last year
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Yes, it certainly would be. If we assume that somehow someway the COG can find a source for the funds, MH kicks in a bit more & the $25M is deducted from the total price, Gary Bettman may provide relief (not a discount, but time) through deferrals & or the re-channeling of revenues (broadcasting for eg) to cover the shortfalls in the near term. Youve gotta figure he does have some, not much, but some latitude with terms, provided he's receiving at least 75% of whats required at point of sale. The $200M question is will he?. And the $100M question to the COG is still from where, how & when?.
Last edited:
Jesus Christ Horburn
Registered User
- Aug 22, 2008
- 13,942
- 1
Sunnucks articles have become unbearable to read. While he did a pretty solid job of reporting this story in the months following the bankruptcy, his integrity as a journalist has really declined over the last year.
He puts out article after article based on nothing but his own speculation, only vaguely citing "sources close to the Coyotes" situation in each and every article. And those sources have never been correct.
Just take this latest article for example. He starts it with:
As if it is a proven fact and already confirmed.
However, upon review, he reveals it's all based on his own speculation:
So what actual evidence does he have to suggest that a new deal is being worked on AND will be voted on next week?
Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe this is the situation if it was reported by Sanders. At least she has proven that she has contacts within both COG and GWI.
How quick could CoG turn around another bond sale? They knew they were going to sell bonds for the parking in *November* (from the TL Hocking report - IIRC) and it took them until February to actually issue them...
Is this their normal turn-around time? I doubt they could efficiently act in such a fashion that's speculated in that article. Maybe in another two months... So... The Coyote's will be saved in July?
Is this their normal turn-around time? I doubt they could efficiently act in such a fashion that's speculated in that article. Maybe in another two months... So... The Coyote's will be saved in July?
Why would the NHL lower it's asking price by $25M? Doing so would value the franchise at ~$115M from their original valuation of $140M. Wouldn't that impact the valuation of some other franchises currently for sale (which the owners would not want...)
MAROONSRoad
f/k/a Ghost
Wow, I missed the recent discussion on the parking rights.
So, the so-called previous 'consensus' here that the City did not own the parking lot rights and thus could receive lawful consideration of such rights in return for payment of millions to the team/arena manager has broken down?
I warned about hasty judgment on the matter due to a number of concerns that I pointed out at the time of the so-called 'consensus,' chiefly: 1) that GWI's lawyers did not believe that was clearly the case -- and unlike some here, I assumed that a) they were not incompetent fools and b) they likely had better information -- and 2) that it was possible that not all of the relevant documents and/or facts on this subject were available and/or being analyzed by members here. It appears that my concerns may have been warranted in this case.
GHOST
Fourier
Registered User
2017? Should we really believe any suggetsed deadline at this stage?Didn't Dreger say the latest "deadline" (note the quotations... for obvious reasons) was May 6th? Guess we will find out if he's correct.
King Woodballs
Captain Awesome
I can't see how this would get voted down by councel
this deal will get down one way or another
this deal will get down one way or another
Wouldn't GWI have issues with not only the $50 mil in bonds but also Glendale paying that $25 mil to the NHL? From what I've read they were waiting for an accepted offer to purchase to push foward with any lawsuit.
Just the fact that Glendale was trying to pull a fast one by buying parking they already owned puts a foul taste in your mouth.
Just the fact that Glendale was trying to pull a fast one by buying parking they already owned puts a foul taste in your mouth.
I am glad you brought this back. Every time we get going discussing matters of substance, we run out of time before the thread gets buried under the usual non-substantive "discussion", and we forget to get re-started. Well done.
The only import of the January 25th MUDA Amendment is that, within its recitals at the beginning, it provides probably the easiest summary of the path of the parking rights so as to explain their circuitous route to the laypersons on the Board. As you recall, i wrote a several thousand word post explaining the same thing, but that explanation is far more succinct. Beyond that, it stuns me how you seem to be so sucked in by the GWI's empty rhetoric on this issue.
That's right, the COG does. However, nothing in the amended MUDA assigns those rights from Ellman to the City. As I mentioned to you in my previous post on this subject, there is no assignment language in this agreement. Absent any assignment language, there is nothing going from Ellman to COG, except an acknowledgement that COG is going to exploit those parking rights. In order to get that consent, they still have to get the parking rights from the team owner. That is still what they are acquiring from the team, and that is what is worth all the money.
I asked you for an explanation as to why there was no assignment language, but you failed to respond then, or above either. I take it you have no answer.
"Egregious errors such as the language in the Arena Put Option"? Are you referring to what Dranius stated in that interview? It is laughable. I would make fun of him if I didn't believe that he was intentionally misstating it to a radio audience that isn't going to check him. The alternative is that he is simply too inexperienced to actually read a commercial legal document, and i would think that, although I would bet cash money that he had never looked at a put clause before in his life, he could at least red plain English.
He stated that the document had "bad lawyering", because the put option stated it to be the lesser of $40M and zero. He is, in short, an outright liar. I hesitate to say that about counsel, but he is. The clause says no such thing. What it does say is that it is the lesser of $40M or any lower number as mutually agreed by the parties. The only way it is less than $40M is if the COG allows it to be so - for example, if they take the put option 30 years from now and fold it into a more complicated and more lucrative deal where the COG gets other compensation (i.e., their use of $12.5M in escrow funds to do a bigger deal with Ellman) - the COG will be able to do so, instead of being forced to take the $40M.
I know where he got that too, and it is a cheesy litigator's tactic to which the litigators whom I instruct and with whom I deal would never consider lowerign themselves. There was a discussion about this in the COG/GWI meeting (I decline to use the childish name prescribed for it by Darcy Olsen), and someone said tht the parties COULD THEORETICALLY agree for THE PUT OPTION PRICE to be zero, and someone replied, correctly, that sure, it could be any price, as it says. Dranius now jumps on that and says "aha! the price is the lower of $40M and zero!!!" That, my friend, is first-year-junior level lawyering, or the type of argument you get from laypeople who fancy that they could be a lawyer and learned all they "know" from TV legal dramas.
As I inferred above but will make more clear so there is no misunderstanding, we have two options: Dranius is completely incompetent with respect to the interpretation of commercial agreements (no comment on his competency on other legal areas), or he understands the provisions and is flat out lying.
I know you seem compelled to stand up for these guys' supposed legal skill because they won a few cases before the Supreme Court, but I should point out to you that it does not necessarily take a huge amount of skill to win a case before the SC or any particular level of the court system. I know that litigators generally think it is always THEIR skill that wins cases, but FACTS win cases, my friend. Surely you would acknowledge that mediocre, and even outright poor, lawyers have been winning cases forever, simply because they have the facts on their side. Of course, in your country and politicized bench, there is also the issue of winning cases because the political bent of your case (and GWI takes nothing but political cases) matches that of the judge (and that applies for both liberals and conservatives, mind you). Winning a SC case does not make you a competent lawyer. Being a skilled lawyer can increase one's chances if your case is somewhere around the margins of success (not that many are like that, mind you), but if you have the facts, you don't need to be all that good. As well, it is also a function of the skill of the opposing lawyer; even if you are relatively inept, you can still win on decent facts if the other guy is worse.
What we are talking about here is a commercial transaction. Having reviewed the background of the GWI legal staff, with one brief exception none of them have held a legal job in business, or indeed any business job. Them talking about how to fix the deal is absolutely laughable. These guys are playing pretend-commercial-lawyer, and at times it is pretty comical. Feel free to disagree, but I can say as the guy who actually is a commercial lawyer in this discussion that, based on my having heard them in action and in interviews, the GWI guys would get destroyed by any marginally competent commercial lawyer, much less the guys with whom I deal. It is clearly not what they do.
I find it interesting that you are rooting for this to turn into a legal case. It's funny, because what I am hoping for is a DEAL, not because I have any rooting interest in PHO staying, but because deals are what I do. The reason why I chose commercial law over litigation is because philosophically speaking the former is constructive and allows both parties to win if done the right way, while the latter is destructive and precludes that possibility. To me, the latter is evidence of failure or breakdown of the former. I can't get excited about rooting for a failure of the constructive end of the commercial process.
There is nothing wrong with the put option.
Correct. Assuming these rumours from unconfirmed sources are accurate....
NHL Needs $182 million:
$140 million original purchase price
$30 million losses for 2009-10
$37 million reported losses for 2010-11
Less: $25 million received from COG
Total = $182 million
$70 million from Hulsizer
$50 million from alleged new bond sale
$25 million from Scrugg's favorite source "TBD" in some kind of deferred payment, presumably from Hulsizer
$37 million extra from Hulsizer to generously cover 2010-11 losses
Less: $25 million of the above that goes back to the COG
Total = $157 million
So if they get this far, the NHL will have agreed to defer $25 million of the purchase price, and maybe they'll get that back at some point in the future. They're not going to lower the price an additional $25 million to close the gap (and I don't even see why they would defer a part of the purchase price, or why MH would suddenly agree to pay another $25 million, even if he has a few years to do so).
Glendale still needs to come up with another $25 million, which could basically mean they don't take the $25 million back from MH to replenish the enterprise fund, they give up on getting that money back as part of the deal and face the consequences.
If they can't using parking income to try to justify the subsidy, how does COG justify the $50 million bond payment plus $97 million management fees plus not getting the $25 million back? Even if they do justify that, there's still the bond issue that GWI will take issue with.
I give them an A for effort, but I don't see how this actually works.
OthmarAmmann
Omnishambles
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Whenever a deal gets to the stage of herculean efforts to try to save it, it generally does not get to the finish line.
Just to return this to the usual non-substantive "discussion", would a DEAL between the NHL and TNSE not qualify for your objective admiration?
I'm dumb. Why does the CoG need a third party's permission ("consent") to exploit parking rights assigned to them from the team/arena manager? If the CoG receives such "consent" in the context of a money deal it seems like they paid for the "consent". What's the difference between "parking rights" and a concent to park?
Potrzebie
Registered User
- Mar 25, 2010
- 2,362
- 2,991
King Woodballs
Captain Awesome
I'm dumb. Why does the CoG need a third party's permission ("consent") to exploit parking rights assigned to them from the team/arena manager? If the CoG receives such "consent" in the context of a money deal it seems like they paid for the "consent". What's the difference between "parking rights" and a concent to park?
You're not dumb, it's known by two names: splitting hairs, and too cute by half. Neither of which are legal terms, but are the lifeblood of many a lawyer.
The grey area is where the courts come in to decide where the line really exists, and the line is flexible in many cases depending on the arguments presented and the presentation of the facts. It is the system we have on both sides of the border because so much of our law is unwritten and based on precedent, this flexibility is a gift as the law can adapt as society changes and there is only one certainty (ok three with death and taxes) in life that's change (even in the frivolous life of hockey clubs)
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 187,030
- 39,094
Didn't Dreger say the latest "deadline" (note the quotations... for obvious reasons) was May 6th? Guess we will find out if he's correct.
Someone else said 2 weeks from April 22.
Respectfully, please explain to me how it is you believe Ellman retained rights that had vested with the tenant to charge for parking, such that he could assign those rights (if that is how you indeed interpret the Jan. 25th agreement) to the City when the rights to charge had already been vested with the tenant during later transactions.
Of course, we agree that you can only assign those rights you currently have. How, then, did the right to charge for parking revert back to Ellman on Jan. 25th such that he could assign those rights?
I submit they did not, and you are misreading the Jan. 25th agreement which in fact is really a land swap and addresses rights under a parking garage that was never built.
The path to the parking rights remains clear, and the Jan. 25th agreement did not alter the right to charge for parking, which remains in the Moyes Estate, subject to assumption by the NHL, which rights convey to the new owner MH, who will now sell those rights for a reported $50M.
cbcwpg
Registered User
Sorry if us "non-lawyer" types are disrupting your thought process. Maybe you need your own thread that you can privately go to and "post" with yourself.
I don't mind the laywer speak as it is informative and useful to the discussion. But nothing gives you the right to demand that people only talk about what you want to talk about. Oh well, its just too bad I live in a place that allows me and everyone else of here the right to "discuss" whatever we feel like as long as it is on topic.
Delete away MODs. Sorry, but it had to be said.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: The Menu Part 23 - The Tripod & Kenny McCormick Edition- Latest: JojoTheWhale
Upcoming events
-
Victoriaville Tigres @ Drummondville Voltigeurs - Game 1Wagers: 1Staked: $25.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Belleville Senators @ Toronto Marlies -Belleville Senators leads series 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $440.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 1 W-B/Scranton Penguins @ Lehigh Valley Phantoms - Lehigh Valley Phantoms leads series 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $180.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
